Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 47/66 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

• Creating new process with Lua interpreater, failures in passing argumets

  - by user1131997

  I need help with passing arguments in CreateProcess() //Windows I want to: BOOL status = CreateProcess(L"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Lua\\lua52.exe", NULL, NULL, NULL, FALSE, NULL, NULL, NULL, &si, &pi); But with passing some arguments.... Lua interpreater accepts file with lua-scripts, so I have prepared it and want to do: lua52 C:\1.lua for example... I have the path of some lua-script and want the interpreater of Lua to interpreate it and than get the result of program on Lua from Created process. I have tried in some ways to do it, but no success. Please, help! Thank you!

  Read the article

• Task.wait not working as I imagined

  - by user2357446

  I am trying to download a file, wait for the file to finish downloading, and then read the file afterwards. I have the following methods to do this: private async Task startDownload(string link, string savePath) { WebClient client = new WebClient(); client.DownloadProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(client_DownloadProgressChanged); client.DownloadFileCompleted += new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(client_DownloadFileCompleted); await client.DownloadFileTaskAsync(new Uri(link), savePath); } private void checkUpdateButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => startDownload(versionLink, versionSaveTo)); task.Wait(); if (task.IsCompleted) { checkVersion(); } } The checkVersion() method reads the file that was downloaded. This is throwing an IOException saying that the file is in use by something else and cannot be read. I thought that having task.Wait would prevent the rest of the method from executing until the task was finished?

  Read the article

• Is private method in spring service implement class thread safe

  - by Roger Ray

  I got a service in an project using Spring framework. public class MyServiceImpl implements IMyService { public MyObject foo(SomeObject obj) { MyObject myobj = this.mapToMyObject(obj); myobj.setLastUpdatedDate(new Date()); return myobj; } private MyObject mapToMyObject(SomeObject obj){ MyObject myojb = new MyObject(); ConvertUtils.register(new MyNullConvertor(), String.class); ConvertUtils.register(new StringConvertorForDateType(), Date.class); BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class); return myojb; } } Then I got a class to call foo() in multi-thread; There goes the problem. In some of the threads, I got error when calling BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); saying Cannot invoke com.my.MyObject.setStartDate - java.lang.ClassCastException@2da93171 obviously, this is caused by ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class) which is supposed to be called after BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. It looks like one of the threads deregistered the Date class out while another thread was just about to call BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. So My question is how do I make the private method mapToMyObject() thread safe? Or simply make the BeanUtils thread safe when it's used in a private method. And will the problem still be there if I keep the code this way but instead I call this foo() method in sevlet? If many sevlets call at the same time, would this be a multi-thread case as well?

  Read the article

• Servlet that starts a thread only once for every visitor

  - by user858749

  Hey I want to implement a Java Servlet that starts a thread only once for every single user. Even on refresh it should not start again. My last approach brought me some trouble so no code^^. Any Suggestions for the layout of the servlet? public class LoaderServlet extends HttpServlet { // The thread to load the needed information private LoaderThread loader; // The last.fm account private String lfmaccount; public LoaderServlet() { super(); lfmaccount = ""; } @Override protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { if (loader != null) { response.setContentType("text/plain"); response.setHeader("Cache-Control", "no-cache"); PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); out.write(loader.getStatus()); out.flush(); out.close(); } else { loader = new LoaderThread(lfmaccount); loader.start(); request.getRequestDispatcher("WEB-INF/pages/loader.jsp").forward( request, response); } } @Override protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { if (lfmaccount.isEmpty()) { lfmaccount = request.getSession().getAttribute("lfmUser") .toString(); } request.getRequestDispatcher("WEB-INF/pages/loader.jsp").forward( request, response); } } The jsp uses ajax to regularly post to the servlet and get the status. The thread just runs like 3 minutes, crawling some last.fm data.

  Read the article

• What's Wrong With My VB.NET Code Of Windows Forms Application?

  - by Krishanu Dey

  I've to forms frmPrint & frmEmail and a dataset(MyDataset) with some DataTable and DataTable Adapters. In frmPrint I've the following Sub Public Sub StartPrinting() try adapterLettersInSchedules.Fill(ds.LettersInSchedules) adapterLetters.Fill(ds.Letters) adapterClients.Fill(ds.Clients) adapterPrintJobs.GetPrintJobsDueToday(ds.PrintJobs, False, DateTime.Today) For Each prow As MyDataSet.PrintJobsRow In ds.PrintJobs Dim lisrow As MyDataSet.LettersInSchedulesRow = ds.LettersInSchedules.FindByID(prow.LetterInScheduleID) If lisrow.Isemail = False Then Dim clientrow As MyDataSet.ClientsRow = ds.Clients.FindByClientID(prow.ClientID) Dim letterrow As MyDataSet.LettersRow = ds.Letters.FindByID(lisrow.LetterID) 'prow. 'lisrow.is Label1.SuspendLayout() Label1.Refresh() Label1.Text = "Printing letter" txt.Rtf = letterrow.LetterContents txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Firstname%>", clientrow.FirstName) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Lastname%>", clientrow.LastName) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Title%>", clientrow.Title) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Street%>", clientrow.Street) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%City%>", clientrow.City) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%State%>", clientrow.State) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Zip%>", clientrow.Zip) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%PhoneH%>", clientrow.PhoneH) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%PhoneW%>", clientrow.PhoneW) txt.Rtf = txt.Rtf.Replace("<%Date%>", DateTime.Today.ToShortDateString) Try PDoc.PrinterSettings = printDlg.PrinterSettings PDoc.Print() prow.Printed = True adapterPrintJobs.Update(prow) Catch ex As Exception End Try End If Next prow ds.PrintJobs.Clear() Catch ex As Exception MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Print", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error) End Try End Sub And in frmEmail i've the Following Sub Public Sub SendEmails() try adapterLettersInSchedules.Fill(ds.LettersInSchedules) adapterLetters.Fill(ds.Letters) adapterClients.Fill(ds.Clients) adapterEmailJobs.GetEmailJobsDueToday(ds.EmailJobs, False, Today) Dim ls_string As String For Each prow As MyDataSet.EmailJobsRow In ds.EmailJobs Dim lisrow As MyDataSet.LettersInSchedulesRow = ds.LettersInSchedules.FindByID(prow.LetterInScheduleID) If lisrow.Isemail = True Then Dim clientrow As MyDataSet.ClientsRow = ds.Clients.FindByClientID(prow.ClientID) Dim letterrow As MyDataSet.LettersRow = ds.Letters.FindByID(lisrow.LetterID) txt.Rtf = letterrow.LetterContents ls_string = RTF2HTML(txt.Rtf) ls_string = Mid(ls_string, 1, Len(ls_string) - 176) If ls_string = "" Then Throw New Exception("Rtf To HTML Conversion Failed") Label1.SuspendLayout() Label1.Refresh() Label1.Text = "Sending Email" If SendEmail(clientrow.Email, ls_string, letterrow.EmailSubject) Then Try prow.Emailed = True adapterEmailJobs.Update(prow) Catch ex As Exception End Try Else prow.Emailed = False adapterEmailJobs.Update(prow) End If End If Next prow Catch ex As Exception MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Email", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error) End Try End Sub I'm running this two subs using two different Threads. Public th As New Thread(New ThreadStart(AddressOf StartFirstPrint)) Public th4 As New Thread(New ThreadStart(AddressOf sendFirstEmail)) Here is the code of StartFirstPrint and sendFirstEmail Public Sub StartFirstPrint() Do While thCont Try Dim frm As New frmPrint() 'frm.MdiParent = Me frm.StartPrinting() Catch ex As Exception End Try Loop End Sub Public Sub sendFirstEmail() Do While thCont Try Dim frmSNDEmail As New frmEmail frmSNDEmail.SendEmails() Catch ex As Exception End Try Loop End Sub the thCont is a public boolean variable that specifies when to shop those threads. Most Of the time this works very well. But some times it gives errors Like the following image I don't know why is this occurring. Please help me.

  Read the article

• How does jQuery have asynchronous functions?

  - by Sam.Rueby

  I'm surprised I can't find a clear answer to this. So, in jQuery, you can do this: $(someElements).fadeOut(1000); $(someElements).remove(); Which, will start a fadeOut animation, but before it finishes executing in the 1 second duration, the elements are removed from the DOM. But how is this possible? I keep reading the JavaScript is single threaded. ( Is javascript guaranteed to be single-threaded? ) This question is not "How do I fix this?" I know I can do either: $(someElements).fadeOut(1000).promise().done(function() { $(someElements).remove();});, or even better:$(someElements).fadeOut(1000, function() { $(this).remove(); } ); What I don't understand is how JavaScript runs in a "single thread" but I'm able to use these jQuery functions that execute asynchronously and visibly see the DOM change in different places at the same time. How does it work?

  Read the article

• Are Java Swing Components Threaded?

  - by Trizicus

  For example if I extend a JLabel or a JButton is it threaded or do I need to implement my own Runnable?

  Read the article

• What happens to an instance of ServerSocket blocked inside accept(), when I drop all references to i

  - by Hanno Fietz

  In a multithreaded Java application, I just tracked down a strange-looking bug, realizing that what seemed to be happening was this: one of my objects was storing a reference to an instance of ServerSocket on startup, one thread would, in its main loop in run(), call accept() on the socket while the socket was still waiting for a connection, another thread would try to restart the component under some conditions, the restart process missed the cleanup sequence before it reached the initialization sequence as a result, the reference to the socket was overwritten with a new instance, which then wasn't able to bind() anymore the socket which was blocking inside the accept() wasn't accessible anymore, leaving a complete shutdown and restart of the application as the only way to get rid of it. Which leaves me wondering: with no references left to the ServerSocket instance, what would free the socket for a new connection? At what point would the ServerSocket become garbage collected? In general, what are good practices I can follow to avoid this type of bug?

  Read the article

• Should I Put Critical Section While Getting Connection from OCCI Environment

  - by sahs

  Hello, I'm writing a multi-threaded application. My worker threads get connection from an environment object as follows:. //EnterCriticalSection(&cs); conn = env->createConnection(username, password, connStr); //LeaveCriticalSection(&cs); For concurrency, should the connection be created in a critical section or not? Does the env need it? And why? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Pointer inside a struct / thread

  - by bruno

  Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

  Read the article

• Processing a database queue across multiple threads - design advice

  - by rwmnau

  I have a SQL Server table full of orders that my program needs to "follow up" on (call a webservice to see if something has been done with them). My application is multi-threaded, and could have instances running on multiple servers. Currently, every so often (on a Threading timer), the process selects 100 rows, at random (ORDER BY NEWID()), from the list of "unconfirmed" orders and checks them, marking off any that come back successfully. The problem is that there's a lot of overlap between the threads, and between the different processes, and their's no guarantee that a new order will get checked any time soon. Also, some orders will never be "confirmed" and are dead, which means that they get in the way of orders that need to be confirmed, slowing the process down if I keep selecting them over and over. What I'd prefer is that all outstanding orders get checked, systematically. I can think of two easy ways do this: The application fetches one order to check at a time, passing in the last order it checked as a parameter, and SQL Server hands back the next order that's unconfirmed. More database calls, but this ensures that every order is checked in a reasonable timeframe. However, different servers may re-check the same order in succession, needlessly. The SQL Server keeps track of the last order it asked a process to check up on, maybe in a table, and gives a unique order to every request, incrementing its counter. This involves storing the last order somewhere in SQL, which I wanted to avoid, but it also ensures that threads won't needlessly check the same orders at the same time Are there any other ideas I'm missing? Does this even make sense? Let me know if I need some clarification.

  Read the article

• Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

  - by Adal

  I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

  Read the article

• Multitasking how to make worker thread gain control after calling infinite loop function

  - by user353573

  assume creating 3 worker threads by pthread_create, in these worker thread routine, each call a simple infinite loop function which do not have a return to do counting how to make worker thread gain control after calling infinite loop function and save the context of infinite loop function for calling in worker thread again?

  Read the article

• Does PHP5 supports multi threading?

  - by learner

  Any body knows PHP5 supports multi threading or not. If it support how to implement that?

  Read the article

• How do I wait for all other threads to finish their tasks?

  - by Mike

  I have several threads consuming tasks from a queue using something similar to the code below. The problem is that there is one type of task which cannot run while any other tasks are being processed. Here is what I have: while (true) // Threaded code { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; task = GetNextTask(); // Get the next task from the queue } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); // Wait until a task is added to the queue } task.Run(); } And this is kind of what I need: while (true) { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; if (disable_new_tasks) { task = null; } else { task = GetNextTask(); } } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); } if(!task.IsThreadSafe()) { // I would set this to false inside task.Run() at // the end of the non-thread safe task disable_new_tasks = true; Wait_for_all_threads_to_finish_their_current_tasks(); } task.Run(); } The problem is I don't know how to achive this without creating a mess.

  Read the article

• What is the fastest (possibly unsafe) way to read a byte[]?

  - by Aidiakapi

  I'm working on a server project in C#, and after a TCP message is received, it is parsed, and stored in a byte[] of exact size. (Not a buffer of fixed length, but a byte[] of an absolute length in which all data is stored.) Now for reading this byte[] I'll be creating some wrapper functions (also for compatibility), these are the signatures of all functions I need: public byte ReadByte(); public sbyte ReadSByte(); public short ReadShort(); public ushort ReadUShort(); public int ReadInt(); public uint ReadUInt(); public float ReadFloat(); public double ReadDouble(); public string ReadChars(int length); public string ReadString(); The string is a \0 terminated string, and is probably encoded in ASCII or UTF-8, but I cannot tell that for sure, since I'm not writing the client. The data exists of: byte[] _data; int _offset; Now I can write all those functions manually, like this: public byte ReadByte() { return _data[_offset++]; } public sbyte ReadSByte() { byte r = _data[_offset++]; if (r >= 128) return (sbyte)(r - 256); else return (sbyte)r; } public short ReadShort() { byte b1 = _data[_offset++]; byte b2 = _data[_offset++]; if (b1 >= 128) return (short)(b1 * 256 + b2 - 65536); else return (short)(b1 * 256 + b2); } public short ReadUShort() { byte b1 = _data[_offset++]; return (short)(b1 * 256 + _data[_offset++]); } But I wonder if there's a faster way, not excluding the use of unsafe code, since this seems a little bit too much work for simple processing.

  Read the article

• Cross Thread problem C#

  - by Frederik Witte

  Hello people - I got this code (lg_log is a listbox, and i want it to log the start_server.bat) Here is the code i got: public void bt_play_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { lg_log.Items.Add("Starting Mineme server .."); string directory = Directory.GetCurrentDirectory(); var info = new ProcessStartInfo(directory + @"\start_base.bat") {UseShellExecute = false, RedirectStandardOutput = true, CreateNoWindow = true, WorkingDirectory = directory + @"\Servers\Base"}; var proc = new Process { StartInfo = info, EnableRaisingEvents = true }; proc.OutputDataReceived += (obj, args) => { if (args.Data != null) { lg_log.Items.Add(args.Data); } }; proc.Start(); proc.BeginOutputReadLine(); lg_log.Items.Add("Server is now running!"); proc.WaitForExit(); } When i run this, i'll get an error .. Anybody can help me? I'll rate the answer up! :D Edit: The error i get is this: System.InvalidOperationException Hope it helps :) The error comes at the lg_log.Items.Add(args.Data); code line

  Read the article

• XNA Multi-Thread Jitters

  - by Ice Phoenix

  Hi guys, brand new question. Just implemented multi-threading into my XNA game as it was unable to keep up with using 1 processor. MT is all implemented fine and everything, however the player seems to jitter all over the spot every now and then. I originally thought it was a loss of data between the update and render, but even when i did the player update in the render it did the same thing. It's not a memory/processor issue as i'm no where near maxing out my RAM or processors. It's strange aswell because none of the other entities in the game seem to have any of these issues. Any ideas at all??

  Read the article

• Multi-threaded Application with Readonly Properties

  - by Shiftbit

  Should my multithreaded application with read only properties require locking? Since nothing is being written I assume there is no need for locks, but I would like to make sure. Would the answer to this question be language agnostic? Without Lock: Private m_strFoo as new String = "Foo" Public ReadOnly Property Foo() As String Get return m_strFoo.copy() End Get End Property With Lock: Private m_strBar as new String = "Bar" Public ReadOnly Property Bar() As String Get SyncLock (me) return m_strBar.copy() End Synclock End Get End Property

  Read the article

• Neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke

  - by ho

  I seem to remember seeing some neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke to avoid repeating too much code in every event handler but I can't remember what that was. So does anyone know a neat way of writing that code? Preferably for VB.Net 2005.

  Read the article

• Will this make the object thread-safe?

  - by sharptooth

  I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

  Read the article

• Java: Allowing the child thread to kill itself on InterruptedException?

  - by Zombies

  I am using a ThreadPool via ExecutorService. By calling shutDownNow() it interrupts all running threads in the pool. When this happens I want these threads to give up their resources (socket and db connections) and simply die, but without continuing to run anymore logic, eg: inserting anything into the DB. What is the simplest way to achieve this? Bellow is some sample code: public void threadTest() { Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(999999); } catch (InterruptedException e) { //invoke thread suicide logic here } } }); t.start(); t.interrupt(); try { Thread.sleep(4000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } }

  Read the article

• How do I know if a boost thread is done ?

  - by jules

  I am using boost::thread to process messages in a queue. When a first message comes I start a message processing thread. When a second message comes I check if the message processing thread is done. if it is done I start a new one if it is not done I don nothing. How do I know if the thread is done ? I tried with joinable() but it is not working, as when the thread is done, it is still joinable. I also tried to interrupt the process at once, and add an interruption point at the end of my thread, but it did not work. Thanks

  Read the article

• Unload event for the default AppDomain?

  - by Zor

  Hi, I need to have an event fired whenever any AppDomain unloads - including the default one of the process. The problem with AppDomain.DomainUnload is that it only fires for non-default AppDomains. Furthermore, AppDomain.ProcessExit has limited execution time, which I cannot rely on. Any suggestions as to how I can achieve this would be greatly appreciated! (Alternatively, having an event fired when a background thread (Thread.IsBackground == True) works too.) Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Handling a Long Running jsp request on the server using Ajax and threads

  - by John Blue

  I am trying to implement a solution for a long running process on the server where it is taking about 10 min to process a pdf generation request. The browser bored/timesout at the 5 mins. I was thinking to deal with this using a Ajax and threads. I am using regular javascript for ajax. But I am stuck with it. I have reached till the point where it sends the request to the servlet and the servlet starts the thread.Please see the below code public class HelloServlet extends javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet implements javax.servlet.Servlet { protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { } protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { System.out.println("POST request!!"); LongProcess longProcess = new LongProcess(); longProcess.setDaemon(true); longProcess.start(); request.getSession().setAttribute("longProcess", longProcess); request.getRequestDispatcher("index.jsp").forward(request, response); } } class LongProcess extends Thread { public void run() { System.out.println("Thread Started!!"); while (progress < 10) { try { sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException ignore) {} progress++; } } } Here is my AJax call <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title>My Title</title> <script language="JavaScript" > function getXMLObject() //XML OBJECT { var xmlHttp = false; xmlHttp = new XMLHttpRequest(); //For Mozilla, Opera Browsers return xmlHttp; // Mandatory Statement returning the ajax object created } var xmlhttp = new getXMLObject(); //xmlhttp holds the ajax object function ajaxFunction() { xmlhttp.open("GET","HelloServlet" ,true); xmlhttp.onreadystatechange = handleServerResponse; xmlhttp.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'); xmlhttp.send(null); } function handleServerResponse() { if (xmlhttp.readyState == 4) { if(xmlhttp.status == 200) { document.forms[0].myDiv.value = xmlhttp.responseText; setTimeout(ajaxFunction(), 2000); } else { alert("Error during AJAX call. Please try again"); } } } function openPDF() { document.forms[0].method = "POST"; document.forms[0].action = "HelloServlet"; document.forms[0].submit(); } function stopAjax(){ clearInterval(intervalID); } </script> </head> <body><form name="myForm"> <table><tr><td> <INPUT TYPE="BUTTON" NAME="Download" VALUE="Download Queue ( PDF )" onclick="openPDF();"> </td></tr> <tr><td> Current status: <div id="myDiv"></div>% </td></tr></table> </form></body></html> But I dont know how to proceed further like how will the thread communicate the browser that the process has complete and how should the ajax call me made and check the status of the request. Please let me know if I am missing some pieces. Any suggestion if helpful.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >